Today’s Washington Post provides further confirmation of Ron Paul’s complicity in publishing racist newsletters that bear his name. It is becoming increasingly difficult for Ron Paul’s defenders to brush aside his coziness with racists and racist views. His idealistic young supporters, in particular, need to be aware of this element of his “libertarian” politics.

This quote from a former associate portrays Paul’s approval of racist statements in his newsletters as a cynical business ploy.

A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’

If we take the source at his word–that Ron Paul didn’t really believe this stuff–then we are left with the position that he nevertheless thought it was o.k., indeed desirable, to publish it under his name as long as it made him some money. Is this the Hayekian economics that he wants to unleash on us?

If this latest revelation doesn’t disqualify Ron Paul from the presidency of the United States of America, I don’t know what does.

This performance–so obviously scripted, and delivered with such brazen force of blarney that even Newt Gingrich must have been surprised when no one in the audience laughed–is being cast as a triumph of political skill by an exhausted and cynical press. “He took charge of the debate,” they proclaim. But I have a feeling that it won’t do him much good in the long run.

Yes, in Republican circles bashing “the media” always plays well. It gave us Richard Milhous Nixon, after all. And in this age of irony, even powerful elements of the media do it–Fox “News” comes to mind. It is the magic wand that makes every serious critique of power, corruption, and greed just disappear.

But for those of us living outside the glass house of so-called “values” politics, how could Newt’s soliloquy not remind us of that golden era of jaw-dropping chutzpah in which Newt drew up articles of impeachment against that other famous philanderer, Bill Clinton…for lying about having an affair? Oh, how I miss those “grandiose ideas” about moral responsibility and the rule of law, and all the other baloney that he tried to distract us with as he climbed the ropes of political power and slept with a congressional aide.

I know this is low hanging fruit, and I could honestly care less about what consenting adults do in their marriages, and in particular, with their sex lives, but good grief, this man is so deeply cynical that every other word that comes out of his mouth these days stretches the limits of gullibility–even in the realm of presidential politics.

Martin’s two greatest speeches (sayin’ something there). If you haven’t seen the entire “I have a dream speech” you MUST see it all. The words and rhythm are beautiful music: meeting physical force with “soul force”…. “’til justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Nuff said.

(speech starts about 1 minute in)

Here is the powerful and eerie ending of the magnificent “Mountaintop” speech. He was assassinated the next day.

(Do not adjust your computers. There is an audio problem about 8 seconds in, but by 15 seconds all is well and beautiful)

This is one of my favorite Bob Dylan tunes, and with the exception of Billie Holiday’s Strange Fruit, it is the most powerful song about the old south I’ve ever heard. The mindscape Dylan paints is a dark one, occupied by ghosts of slavery ships, cracking whips, and burning plantations. Yet, at the conclusion of each uncomfortable stanza, he offers a small degree of redemption: “But I know no one can sing the blues like Blind Willie McTell!”

God is in his heaven
We all want what’s His
But power and greed
and corruptible seed
Seem to be all that there is.
I’m gazing out the window
Of the old St. James Hotel…

It’s hard to predict the winner of a rematch in college football, especially when the game is this big. Usually, the loser of the first game has an advantage in the second. But, LSU’s defense is too good. They will force at least two key turnovers (that’s what they do).

Besides, in games where I don’t really have a dog in the hunt, I like to go with the goofiest coach. With that criterion, Les Miles would get my pick in almost any game. The man eats grass when he is nervous. Will he eat Astroturf tonight?

There is a rumor out there, promoted last night by Chuck Todd via twitter, and repeated by Andrew Sullivan (whose analysis I greatly admire, other than his Paul fixation), that Ron Paul voted for the Martin Luther King, Jr. federal holiday. Here is Todd’s real-time debate tweet.

This is not true. What he voted for was a change of datefor the holiday, not the holiday itself. Ron Paul never voted for the MLK holiday–ever. His former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell, who is said to have written Paul’s newsletters under the pseudonym “Ron Paul,” even called it “Hate Whitey Day.”

Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.

Whether it was written by Paul or by his chief of staff, the use of first person is disturbing. It is difficult to believe that this is a newsletter from a United States congressman. Then last night at the New Hampshire debate, Ron Paul had the nerve to say that Martin Luther King, Jr. is “one of my heroes” because his methods were, in Paul’s view, very much in the spirit of his own libertarian do-it-yourself values. What then would Paul make of the fact that MLK very publically solicited help from JFK and the federal government in his cause.

Ta-Nehisi Coates, as usual, is on the case. This morning he walks his readers through the facts in another beautifully reasoned blog post at the Atlantic (that is where I was first alerted to all this, including the quote from the newsletter).

Addendum: I see that Chuck Todd has corrected this on his twitter stream. I expect that Sullivan will address this as well.

Correction (12:23AM, January 9): As a reader points out, Chuck Todd didn’t really correct his error. He never even admitted that he made a mistake. He merely offfered a “clarification.”

To clarify, the roll call for the 1983 House vote on making MLK’s birthday a federal holiday; http://bit.ly/sbCZin; Paul NO, Gingrich YES

Buck up Chuck. “Mistakes were made.”

Update: Andrew Sullivan gives TNC a shout-out, but his correction is qualified. After quoting TNC on the actual vote that Paul cast, Sullivan adds:

There’s this piece of evidence that seems to vindicate Paul. But it’s merely about when to recognize the holiday, not whether to, so far as I can tell.

Mitt Romney speaks to capitalist children as John McCain tries to remember something (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Reporting from Manchester, New Hampshire–

Mitt Romney spent the day campaigning in what unnamed sources describe as a mental “fugue state.” According to Los Angeles Times reporter Cathleen Decker, Romney delivered the following advice to a diverse group of old and young white people in Salem, NH (note: transcription provided by special Los Angeles Times Romney translator Sarah Palin).

Capitalism, free enterprise, works. Crony capitalism does not,” Romney said, raising the subject repeatedly during a one-hour gathering of supporters at a local Boys & Girls Club. This president has engaged and is engaging in crony capitalism,” Romney said, adding that Obama had directed government resources to benefit ‘the big unions that helped out his campaign.’

When one of the event’s invited attendees, six-year-old Justin Bell of Salem, NH, suggested that unions have not historically been thought of as “capitalist” organizations, per se, Romney was clearly pleased. “I know. That’s what I’ve been saying!”

I understand the appeal of Ron Paul. He is the authentic “get government off my back” candidate. He is against almost all wars, and he is for many of the same “individual liberties” that I support, including the right to choose whether or not I can smoke marijuana in my home, or drive the car of my choice. Essentially, his political philosophy promotes the seductive belief that most of us are mature, responsible citizens who will make good decisions if left alone by the government. Unlike most politicians, he doesn’t seem the least bit cynical about any of this.

But as I look more deeply into his positions on education, health care, race, and the environment, I find his particular brand of libertarianism to be less “liberal” (in the classic sense of “freedom-promoting”) than “self-interested” (that is, in the Ayn Rand sense of “I worked hard for what I’ve got, now leave me alone and do the same”). The problem with the latter type of “libertarianism” is that its claim to authentic liberty is not supported by historical and social circumstances. Moreover, it confuses a free society with a completely self-interested one.

Take a look at Paul’s position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example. On June 3, 2004, the fortieth anniversary of the bill’s passage, he rose alone on the House floor to declare his opposition to a resolution honoring it. He argued that while he believed civil rights for African-Americans is a good thing, having the federal government intervene to “force” it on us is not.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The bold print is his (as it appears on his website) so I think it is safe to assume that Paul believes this to be an important element of his argument. As a son of the south (or Texas anyway) this is an argument that I’m quite familiar with. In my case, I grew up in Friendswood, Texas, just north of Paul’s own congressional district, so I understand the context in which this rhetoric is employed. And context, in this case, is everything.

Notice how Paul’s statement shifts the blame for racial tensions in America from the issue of racism itself toward a supposedly freedom-hating federal government. The main problem with this line of reasoning is that it was actually freedom-denying, segregationist, local and state officials (including sheriffs such as Bull Connor in Alabama) who wouldn’t relinquish their power over African-Americans. When even the local sheriff won’t protect you, where do you turn?

So, when federal officials finally intervened to correct these abuses of liberty, the fight was on, and of course racial conflict increased. When restaurants and department stores post signs that say “No niggers allowed,” and Jim Crow drafts legislation that denies African-Americans their right to vote, how can the federal government not intervene? It seems to me that the expansion of civil liberties to African-American citizens would be an issue that libertarians would whole-heartedly embrace.

Instead, Ron Paul continues to oppose it.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

A little historical context is in order here. While Paul is correct that attitudes have been slowly changing, it is also a historical fact that it took federal action to enforce desegregation in the first place. It simply wasn’t happening on its own. After being confirmed in the supreme court ruling on Plessy vs. Ferguson (1898), racial segregation in America was actually the law of the land until 1954, when the court finally reversed itself in its ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education. Even then, local and state officials in the south simply refused to comply. Let us not forget that president Eisenhower had to send federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas just to make sure that African American children could go to school with white kids. Also, let us not forget that James Meredith’s attempt to enter the University of Mississippi was denied on the grounds of “states’ rights.” In both cases federal intervention was necessary to correct these injustices because racism was so deeply entrenched in almost every aspect of white southern “culture,” including its positions of leadership and law enforcement.

Yet an image of the federal government as some kind of rights-hating monster persists, especially in regard to race relations. But the truth is the federal government has actually been quite hesitant to intervene in matters concerning race. This goes back as far as the original consitutional convention which coughed up the tragic conclusion that African Americans count as 3/5 of a human being. Closer to our own time, let’s not forget that long after Brown vs. Board (which was decided during the Eisenhower administration) John Kennedy was seen by many African Americans as being too passive in the enforcement and expansion of civil rights. Apparently, the political consequences of losing the south weighed heavily on him. But when the nation saw the ugly images of Bull Connor’s German Shepherds and fire hoses (see the video below), as well as the violent protests at the University of Mississippi in opposition to James Meredith’s enrollment, Kennedy’s hand was forced. The result was the Civil Rights Act, which Kennedy initiated and Lyndon Johnson saw through (at great political cost for his party, at least in the short-term).

All you have to do is look at this National History Day video on segregation in Alabama to see that private efforts, while important, were not enough to secure the freedoms of black citizens in the south. As you watch this clip ask yourself if things would have just worked themselves out.

Ron Paul’s claim that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional because it limited the rights of white business owners reveals an alarmingly narrow sense of what freedom means. It also demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution. While freedom from government was certainly an important principle in the framers’ minds, as exemplified by the Bill of Rights, so was the freedom from mob rule, as exemplified by the separation of powers. It is for the latter reason that we are not simply a “democracy,” but rather a constitutitonal republic.

As John Locke, the Scottish philosopher (and libertarian hero) whose ideas had a profound influence on both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, suggested, we are all participants in a social contract between the governed and the government. The government’s role is to protect and promote each citizen’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property. On the one hand, if a government acts arbitrarily to deny those rights, then the governed have a moral obligation to replace it. On the other hand, as citizens we ask the government to protect us from any infringement of our liberties by other citizens. Is this not what African Americans did in the southern states?

Our framers clearly understood that the most vulnerable among us are the ones most in need of protection from the mob. When I see those images of Bull Connor’s attack dogs, I cringe at the thought that a serious presidential candidate believes that Connor’s freedoms are somehow being violated by the Civil Rights Act. That isn’t freedom, it is self-interest.